2. Around 2012 to 2013, the Defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the Defendant invested money in connection with the trading of the instant vehicle to “F” and did not receive any profit therefrom, F decided to deliver the instant vehicle to the Defendant as indicated in the facts charged as a collateral for the said investment deposit (hereinafter “instant vehicle”). Accordingly, the Defendant parked the instant vehicle in the Seoul mid-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government parking lot, which is the place designated by F, and the Defendant did not operate the instant vehicle.

3. In a criminal trial, the burden of proof for the criminal facts prosecuted is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction should be based on the evidence of probative value, which makes the judge sure that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant, the judgment should be based on the benefit of the defendant.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do10096, Jun. 25, 2009). Health class, the protocol of interrogation of the accused prepared by a senior judicial police officer, and the written statement prepared by the accused, are denied by this court, and all of them are inadmissible as evidence.

Next, investigation report prepared by judicial police officers, investigation results of suspects, and witness F.